How does the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in a Presidential Reference differ from its binding judgments?
There is a mention that the Supreme Court's opinion in a Presidential Reference is advisory, while its judgment in the T.N. Governor case is binding. I want to understand the conceptual and practical differences between these two types of decisions.
The Supreme Court of India has the power to give both binding judgments and advisory opinions. These two functions are different in their legal nature, authority, and effect. The distinction is important to understand the scope of the Court’s role in the Indian constitutional framework.
- Nature of Decision:
- Advisory Opinion: Given under Article 143 of the Constitution, when the President seeks the Court’s advice on a question of law or fact of public importance.
- Binding Judgment: Delivered in the course of regular judicial proceedings (like writ petitions or appeals), resolving actual disputes between parties.
- Binding Force:
- Advisory Opinion: Not legally binding on the President or the government. The government may accept or disregard the advice.
- Binding Judgment: Legally binding on all parties involved, and enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 141.
- Initiation:
- Advisory Opinion: Initiated only by the President of India through a reference to the Supreme Court.
- Binding Judgment: Initiated by an aggrieved party approaching the Court for remedy.
- Purpose:
- Advisory Opinion: To guide the executive or legislature in matters of constitutional or legal importance, often before taking a policy decision.
- Binding Judgment: To settle actual legal disputes and provide remedies to affected parties.
- Practical Effect:
- Advisory Opinion: Has persuasive value; can influence policy but does not have the force of law.
- Binding Judgment: Has the force of law and must be complied with by all authorities and individuals.
Answered
2 hours ago